Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

Click to expand...

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

since im in the same fuji boat....might as well ask.
do the other raw converters do what LR does?
since im already using adobe CC, would I need one of those separate raw converters AND LR?
or am I stuck purchasing an expensive raw converter in addition to needing my adobe CC subscription?

Click to expand...

A lot of Fuji users who are also committed to LR find a compromise solution where they get the raw demosaiced externally and then continue all other processing in LR. This works just fine and LR can be set up to call the external converter and then return the RGB output. If you're willing to spend additional then Iridient and PhotoNinja both have instructions on how to set this up and they both do a good job with the X-Trans CFA. If you're using a MAC (required for Iridient) then you also have the DarkTable option which is free. And then there's the Raw Therapee option for both Mac and Windows which is free.

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

Click to expand...

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

Joe

Click to expand...

I guess i need to try darktable and RT and see if theres a difference...
i havent checked the pricing on all the other options yet. i know capture one is $300.

Thanks, Joe. I was about to throw the XT1 in the bucket for an A7r, but after looking at Iridient, I think I'll be happy with the XT1. XT1 has the form factor that I really love but hasn't given me what my A7 has.

Is it just me, or are Fuji Raws just not as well handled in Lightroom as other brands likes Sony and Nikon? I'll take the same exact pictures with my XT1 and compare it with the A7, and the files will turn out quite differently with the same post. Just curious. I know people use to complain about how Adobe didn't support Fuji RAWs very well. Is that still the case?

Click to expand...

It's not you, it's Adobe. The X-Trans CFA is very different than the common Bayer CFA and it requires special demosaicing algorithms to interpolate. As a result the output you get from different raw converters is quite variable one to the next for X-Trans as compared with a Bayer array camera.

Adobe (ACR/LR) has a problem rendering fine detail from the Fuji X-Trans cameras. The problem was severe with LR version 4 and has been improved going forward but it has not been solved. Depending on what you shoot and what you do with the images it can be a pretty minor issue to rather troubling. The solution is to use different raw conversion software. Iridient, PhotoNinja, and Capture One are favored by the Fuji X-Trans camp. One alternative is to get the demosaicing done using a different converter and then continue on using LR.

If you post one of your raws that concern you I can show you some comparisons.

Joe

Click to expand...

I use Lightroom CC. The photos are unusually soft... not out of focus, but just not anything that I would ever consider sharp. I understand that the Sony sensor gives me more room for correction, but applying the same thing or straight out of camera, the XT1 is really soft relative to the a7.

Click to expand...

It's Adobe and not your XT-1.

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I shoot an XE-2 and I'm very happy with the camera. I noticed the "Adobe problem" when I first bought the camera, frame #17 on my first day using it. It took me a long time to dig through it all and find answers. Fortunately I've been a long-time Capture One user and as soon as I switched the file to C1; problem gone, so I knew where to look. It's Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA.

If you don't want to spend the money for Iridient you have two free options that also work well: DarkTable and Raw Therapee.

Joe

Click to expand...

I guess i need to try darktable and RT and see if theres a difference...
i havent checked the pricing on all the other options yet. i know capture one is $300.

im on a PC

Click to expand...

If you're on a Windows system then start by downloading a free copy of Raw Therapee. It does a much better job rendering fine detail from X-Trans than does Adobe.

Another option: Just stick with LR and ignore the issue. The difference in this isn't really that big a deal. It was back in LR versions prior to 6, but Adobe has made adjustments. Also look at this: SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM